Kolkata Court June 1951 Judgments
Gobinda Chandra Dakua Vs. Dinesh Chandra Maitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal100,56CWN137
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or for an order on the respondent, Assessor Inspector, KuJpi, 24-Parganas directing him to cancel his order dated the 28th of January 1951 and to forbear from giving effect to that order.2. The petitioner along with his co-sharers are-the owners of 36 Bighas of lands situated at Mouja Chakmonohar, P. S. Kulpi. The petitioner is a cultivator. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner cultivates the land by himself and hired labourers who ordinarily take their meals at the petitioner's house and take paddy in lieu of their wages. It is further alleged that the petitioner's family consists of 16 members and each of them require one maund of paddy per month and the petitioner requires at least 250 maunds of paddy for one year for feeding his family and maintaining his labourers. It is alleged that the labourers are men. of the same locality and they are landless laboure...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. R. Cohen Vs. S.J. Ejekiel and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal284
ORDERRoxburgh, J. 1. These three Rules are against as many orders passed in appeal by the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, against orders of the Rent Controller fixing the standard rent of the facts in No. 3, Sudder Street, Calcutta. 2. The rents in each case have been fixed on the basis that the opposite parties are sub-tenants and that the petitioner Mrs. R. Cohen is a tenant. Accordingly, applying para. 4 of Schedule A of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act 17 of 1950, the rents have been fixed pro rata at an increase of 61/4 per cent above the rents of Rs. 225/- payable by Mr. Cohen for the whole house. The rents payable in respect of the three flats on December 1,1941, were respectively Rs. 65/-Rs. 65/-, and Rs. 30/- and these have now been fixed at Rs. 25-15-9, Rs. 54-13-0 and Rs. 9-3-0. 3. The petitioner Mrs. Cohen contends that she is an assignee of the leasehold interest of the whole premises No. 3, Sudder Street, having paid Rs. 15,00/ : for that leasehold interest in A...
Tag this Judgment!Phani Bhusan and anr. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal737,55CWN712
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This Rule was issued on the ground that the Municipal Magistrate had committed the common error of Municipal Magistrates of adding to his order of fine in respect of a conviction under Section 271/488, Calcutta Municipal Act an order of threat that the accused will be penalised daily on the prayer of the Corporation.2. Where the accused has been punished under Section 488 of the Act, it is no part of the Magistrate's business, either to purport to impose daily fine for offences not yet committed, or to make threats about what may happen in the future. If the order has not been complied with, it is for the Corporation to apply for a separate summons in a separate case and the Magistrate may then, if satisfied that the offence has been committed for any number of days, impose a further fine appropriate to that number of days and so on ad infinitum or until the party does comply with the order.3. So much of the order, dated 29-5-1951 as refers to future occurrences, is...
Tag this Judgment!indra Narayan Kundu Vs. Girindra Nath Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal192
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition under Section 32(4) of the Rent Control Act for revision of an order of a learned Judge made on appeal in proceedings for fixation of standard rent.2. The landlord applied for the fixation of standard rent of premises No. 53 Harrison Road which were in the possession of the opposite party, as a tenant. The premises were let in 1934 at a rental of Rs. 185/- and that rent has been paid ever since. The proceedings were commenced before the Rent Control Act of 1950 came into force and the judgment of the Rent Controller was also given before the 1950 Act was in force. An appeal was pending when the 1950 Act came into force and by reason of Section 17(3) of the 1950 Act the appellate Court was bound to apply the provisions of the 1950 Act relating to the fixation of standard rent, and that has been done.3. As I have already said the application is for revision of the order of the appellate Judge under the provisions of Section 32(4) of the 1950 Act. But th...
Tag this Judgment!Jatindra Nath Vs. Malai Ram Show
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal352
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. In this appeal by the defendant which arises out of a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages, two questions have been raised by Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the defendant-appellant. The first is whether the defendant-appellant is entitled to any benefits under either Section 18(5) or Section 14, West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 and the second question relates to the legality, validity and sufficiency of the notice to quit which, according to the plaintiff-respondent and the Courts below, determined the tenancy in the present case.2. The material facts as found by the Courts below are not now in dispute and they are as follows:3. The defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the two rooms in suit in holding No. 172, Panchanantala Road, Howrah, at a rental of Rs. 12/- per month. There was default in payment of rent and, therefore, the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of over nine months' rent an...
Tag this Judgment!Shew Moni Shaw Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal634
ORDER1. This Rule is directed against the conviction of the petitioner under Section 326, I.P.C. and his sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year as also a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months more. The conviction was by a Magistrate of Barrack-pore and it was upheld in appeal by an Additional Sessions Judge of Alipore.2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that one Harinarayan Shaw kept a shop at Kancharapara, dealing in tea and betel. The petitioner and his cousin Bidyananda were his customers and were in arrear in regard to their dues. On 23-7-1948, the petitioner and his cousin Bidyananda were passing by the road and they were near the shop of Harinarayan when the latter accosted them and demanded payment of his dues. It is said that the petitioner abused Harinarayan and thereupon an altercation ensued. As the trouble began to grow, people assembled and ultimately the parties were separated. Subsequently, so the prosecution story continued, at...
Tag this Judgment!Dhirendra Nath Bera Vs. Nurul Huda and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal133,56CWN1
Harries, C.J.1. This is a reference made to a Full Bench by a Division Bench in a criminal matter.2. One Mokshoda Dassi, mother of Dhirendra Nath Bera, who was the complainant, had been ill for sometime & while their son was away from home on 3-9-1949 she died. On his return home late in the evening Dhirendra Nath Bera found that his mother had died & with the aid of his friends & neighbours he took the dead body to the Panshilla Hindu cremation ground & placed the body on a funeral pyre which was then lighted. It appears that the accused Nurul Huda had lodged an information at the Shyampore Police Station in which it was alleged that the petitioner had beaten or throttled his mother to death. The accused opposite parties Nurul Huda, Basiral Huq, Sanwaral Huq, Jahet Rahaman, & Dr. Niamutulla--accompanied by a Sub-Inspector of the Shyampore Police Station--hurried to the cremation ground & found that the funeral pyre had been lighted. A complaint was again made to the Sub-Inspector that...
Tag this Judgment!L. Bhupat Rai and Co. Vs. Bhikhum Chand Sugan Chand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal93
Harries, C.J. 1. This is a petition for revision of an order of an appellate court in a matter relating to the fixation of standard rent.2. An application was made to the Rent Controller for fixation of standard rent of a room on the first floor of premises No. 14/2, Old China Bazar Street, Calcutta which was let at a monthly rental of Rs. 80/-.3. It seems clear that this room was not let separately on December 1, 1941 and therefore the provisions of Section 9 (1) (e) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act applied. The Rent Controller had to ascertain the basic rent, that is, the rent which would have been reasonably payable for the premises if they were separately let on December 1, 1941.4. The tenant produced no evidence of rents of similar rooms on the first floor in the vicinity. He relied upon the rent payable for rooms on the second floor of these premises. These rooms were measured and the rent worked out at the rate of 1 anna 6 pies per square foot....
Tag this Judgment!Nandalal Ladia and anr. Vs. Provudayal Tikriwalla and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal74
Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the plffs. against a judgment of the learned Dist. J. Howrah dismissing the plffs'. appeal & the deft, l's cross-objection to that Court.2. The plffs. instituted the present suit for a permanent injunction restraining the deft. 1 from proceeding with the construction by the deft, on his land & for a mandatory injunction requiring the deft, to pull down certain construction already made. The ground on which the plffs. claimed a perpetual & mandatory injunction was that there has been interference with the plffs'. right to light & air by reason of the constructions made by the deft. It was also alleged that there was a breach of the municipal rules & byelaws which entitled the plffs. to require the deft, not to proceed with the construction of the building. The plffs. & defts. are adjoining owners. The trial court gave the plffs. a modified decree. Against the decree of the trial court both parties appealed. The lower appellate court has maintained the decr...
Tag this Judgment!Tamluk Loan Office Co. Ltd. Vs. Kedar Nath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal768
G.N. Das, J.1. This rule was obtained by the plaintiff against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Midnapore allowing a claim filed by opposite parties Nos. 1 to 6 under the provisions of Order 38, Rule 9, Civil P. C.2. The plaintiff instituted a suit against opposite party No. 6 for recovery of certain sums of money due on two promissory notes. The plaintiff thereafter made an application for attachment before judgment of certain bills which stood in the name of opposite parties Nos. 1 and 6 attachment being prayed for in respect of the half share of opposite party No. 6. Thereupon opposite parties Nos. 1 to 5 appeared and preferred a claim. The allegation was that the bills were due to a partnership -firm consisting of opposite parties Nos. 1 to 5 as partners. Opposite party No. 6 was merely a working partner and was entitled only to 2 annas share of the profits.3. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the money due on the bills should be regarded as held by the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »